Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer’s perspective

Aims: An economic evidence is a vital tool that can inform the decision to use costly insulin analogs. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) compared with insulin glargine (IGlar) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Thai payer’s perspective.

Methods: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015?US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ～1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.

Conclusions: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.     

Healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease patients treated with infliximab: a propensity weighted comparison of the effects of treatment adherence

Objective:

The objective for the research was to evaluate the direct healthcare costs for Crohn’s disease (CD) patients categorized by adherence status.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 claim for infliximab and ≥2 claims for CD who were continuously insured for 12 months before and after their first infliximab infusion (index date) were identified in a 2006–2009 US managed care database. Patients were excluded if they had rheumatoid arthritis claims, received infliximab billed as a pharmacy benefit, or received another biologic drug. Patients were categorized as being either adherent or intermittently adherent to infliximab using a pre-defined algorithm. Total and component direct costs, CD-related costs, rates of surgery, and days of hospitalization were estimated for the 360-day post-index period. Propensity weighted generalized linear models were used to adjust the cost estimates for potential confounding variables.

Results:

The total propensity weighted cost for infliximab adherent patients was $40,425 (95% CI?=?[$38,686, $42,242]), compared to $41,082 (95% CI?=?[$38,163, $44,223]) for the intermittently adherent (p?=?0.71). However, adherent patients had lower total direct medical costs, exclusive of infliximab, that were $13,097 (95% CI?=?[$12,141, $14,127]) compared with $20,068 (95% CI?=?[$17,676, $22,784]) for intermittently adherent patients as a result of substantially lower hospital and outpatient costs (p?Conclusions:

Greater drug-related costs for infliximab adherent patients were offset by lower costs from hospitalization and outpatient visits. These findings indicate that adherent patients have improved clinical outcomes, at a similar aggregate cost, than patients who are only intermittently adherent to therapy.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2

Objective: Dulaglutide 1.5?mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8?mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30?kg/m².

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5?mg vs liraglutide 1.8?mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30?kg/m². All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40?IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs.

Results: Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5?mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8?mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5?mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.

Limitations: Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations.

Conclusion: The model found that dulaglutide 1.5?mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8?mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.     

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a United States payer perspective

Aims: Patients with classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cHL) who have relapsed after or are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have limited treatment options and generally a poor prognosis. Pembrolizumab was recently approved in the US for the treatment of such patients having demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability in relapsed/refractory cHL; however, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in this population is currently unknown.

Materials and methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free [PF], progressed disease, and death) was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab (200?mg) vs brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.8?mg/kg) in patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after ASCT who have not received BV post-ASCT over a 20-year time horizon from a US payer perspective. PF survival was modeled using a naïve indirect treatment comparison of data from KEYNOTE-087 and the SG035-003 trial. Post-progression survival was modeled using data from published literature. Costs (drug acquisition and administration, disease management, subsequent treatment, and adverse events) and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%. Uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness was assessed via probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses.

Results: In the base case, pembrolizumab was predicted to yield an additional 0.574 life-years (LYs) and 0.500 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) vs BV and cost savings of $63,278. Drug acquisition costs were the biggest driver of incremental costs between strategies. Pembrolizumab had a 99.6% probability of being cost-effective compared with BV at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000/QALY and dominated BV in all scenarios tested.

Limitations: The analysis was subject to potential bias due to the use of a naïve indirect treatment comparison and, given the current immaturity of OS in KEYNOTE-087, PPS was assumed equivalent across both treatments.

Conclusion: Pembrolizumab is a cost-effective alternative to BV for patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after ASCT.